Articles not in English were excluded. Results: Seventeen articles of the 80 articles identified by our search criteria met inclusion criteria; a total of 682 cases of UFFF were identified, including our patient case. Fifty-five percent of the cases involved use of the Allen’s test. Mean flap size was 6.1 × 10.5 cm. Of the 432 cases reporting flap survival, 14 (3.2%) flap losses were reported, 13 total (3.0%), and one partial (0.2%). The UFFF was preferred to the RFFF due to decreased hirsutism (61%), better cosmetic

outcomes (91%), and better post-operative hand function with reduced donor site morbidity (73%). For the case report, an UFFF was used successfully for lid reconstruction MLN0128 in vivo and resurfacing in a 72-year-old man who presented with late ectropion and exposure keratopathy following maxillary resection for leiomyosarcoma. Conclusions: This is the first and only systematic review of the literature to date of UFFF in head and neck reconstruction. Our review demonstrates that the UFFF rarely results in flap

loss, Ceritinib donor site morbidity, or hand ischemia, instead providing enhanced outcomes. With its many surgeon-perceived advantages and minimal morbidity, the UFFF may become a preferred forearm flap for head and neck reconstruction. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 34:68–75, 2014. Head and neck reconstruction often requires thin and pliable tissue for reconstruction after tumor extirpation or trauma that is not regionally available. Free fasciocutaneous flaps are often considered ideal to reconstruct areas such as the eyelid, tongue, and cheek, typically harvested from the upper or lower extremity. The forearm region emerges as the most reliable in consistency when thin tissue is required,

and provides the advantages of ease of harvest and reliable blood supply. For these reasons, free forearm flaps have been used with great success in the head and neck. Under the assumption that the ulnar artery is the predominant blood supply to the hand, radial forearm free flaps (RFFF) generally have been preferred.[1] However, there is a growing body of literature suggesting that ulnar forearm Fenbendazole free flaps (UFFF) are safe and may be more desirable for head and neck reconstruction with reduced donor site morbidity when compared with the RFFF alternative.[2] However, no systematic review of the literature of UFFF has been conducted to date. We present the results of the only systematic review of UFFF in head and neck reconstruction in the literature to date, and an illustrative case of UFFF for such reconstruction. A systematic review of the literature was conducted. PubMed and manual search were conducted by three independent reviewers. Mesh terms utilized included “Humans,” “Surgical Flaps,” “Forearm/surgery,” “Ulnar Artery,” and “Head and Neck Neoplasms/surgery.” PubMed search terms included “head and neck reconstruction,” “head and neck cancer,” “flaps,” and “ulnar forearm.